Tokis-Phoenix
^_^
Yes i know this can be a controversal topic but it interests me very much and the issues of debate applys to many things in fish keeping as far as morality goes- what are your opinions on wether fish feel pain or not or what fish feel pain? I would also like to explore some of the moral issues when it comes to fish euthanasia too...
ps: i have a feeling this may stir up some tempers as a posibility so please try to control them if it comes to this and be respectful of other peoples opinions and the such like
.
Anyways...
I saw a program on TV a while back on the open university channel, it had a part in it exploring the concept of fish pain in a study on salmon. It was previously thought that salmon had no pain receptors at all but after a more thorough study it concluded that they did have pain receptors in their spinal cord and mouth.
When it comes to what is acceptable as far as methods of fish euthanasia are concerned, alot of what is concidered humane follows the lines of
a. How long it takes to kill the fish, and
b. How much pain/suffering or stress it causes to the fish.
A thought occurred to me that, say we have a platy and that it has been scientifically proven that platys have no pain receptors in their bodys, would this make some of the less acceptable methods of euthanasia more acceptable when applied to the platy than say an oscar in this example, had been scientifically proven that it did have pain receptors in its body?
If the platy had no pain receptors, would it become acceptable to say, chuck it in boiling water? How would the morals of euthanasia change to a fish that had no pain receptors?
My second thought is on how the size of a fish changes what methods of euthanasia are acceptable, if at all.
A while back before i knew about on how freezing a fish was an unaceptable form of putting a fish down, a female guppy i bought from my lfs gave birth to some very inbred fry. Their tails were very deformed and when they started dying a couple of days after being born of genetic swimbladder disorders i decided there was little hope for them.
I netted them out and put them in the freezer- they were dead in under 4seconds. If how long it takes for a fish to die is an important factor of how humane its method of been put down is a major factor, then surely this was not so unaceptable?
I wouldn't imagine fry that are only a couple of days old are not very inteligent and it is very debatable on wether they have pain receptors at all at that early stage of
life.
But i could see where trying to freeze a 10inch plec alive would be very inhumane as due to its size it would mean that it would take longer for the plec to freez and die and thus a far more stressful and slow death.
So does the morality of freezing as a means of euthanasia and other methods depends on the size of the fish?
Many people strongly advise clove oil as the most acceptable form of euthanasia but strongly go against using vodka. I am doubtful on how humane clove oil is and why it is so more different to vodka- its the same principle when it comes down to it after all, a "fast" means of poisoning the blood stream and quick suffocation in one.
What is to say clove oil does not burn the fish's skin off as it dies like vodka?
And i have noticed that clove oil is not a risk free fast method of euthanasia- i have read many storys of it taking up to 5minutes to kill a fish or only make them go unconsious- surely this is not considered the most humane method when there are other methods out there that guaranetee a fast death i.e destroying the fish's brain via bashing its brains out with a hammer or peicing the brain with a sharp object like knife or scissor blade?
With methods of euthansia that rely on poisoning the bloodstream and inducing quick suffocation in one like clove oil, surely this method would become less and less effective on more the larger fish?
What are your opinions on this subject and questions?
ps: i have a feeling this may stir up some tempers as a posibility so please try to control them if it comes to this and be respectful of other peoples opinions and the such like
.Anyways...
I saw a program on TV a while back on the open university channel, it had a part in it exploring the concept of fish pain in a study on salmon. It was previously thought that salmon had no pain receptors at all but after a more thorough study it concluded that they did have pain receptors in their spinal cord and mouth.
When it comes to what is acceptable as far as methods of fish euthanasia are concerned, alot of what is concidered humane follows the lines of
a. How long it takes to kill the fish, and
b. How much pain/suffering or stress it causes to the fish.
A thought occurred to me that, say we have a platy and that it has been scientifically proven that platys have no pain receptors in their bodys, would this make some of the less acceptable methods of euthanasia more acceptable when applied to the platy than say an oscar in this example, had been scientifically proven that it did have pain receptors in its body?
If the platy had no pain receptors, would it become acceptable to say, chuck it in boiling water? How would the morals of euthanasia change to a fish that had no pain receptors?
My second thought is on how the size of a fish changes what methods of euthanasia are acceptable, if at all.
A while back before i knew about on how freezing a fish was an unaceptable form of putting a fish down, a female guppy i bought from my lfs gave birth to some very inbred fry. Their tails were very deformed and when they started dying a couple of days after being born of genetic swimbladder disorders i decided there was little hope for them.
I netted them out and put them in the freezer- they were dead in under 4seconds. If how long it takes for a fish to die is an important factor of how humane its method of been put down is a major factor, then surely this was not so unaceptable?
I wouldn't imagine fry that are only a couple of days old are not very inteligent and it is very debatable on wether they have pain receptors at all at that early stage of
life.
But i could see where trying to freeze a 10inch plec alive would be very inhumane as due to its size it would mean that it would take longer for the plec to freez and die and thus a far more stressful and slow death.
So does the morality of freezing as a means of euthanasia and other methods depends on the size of the fish?
Many people strongly advise clove oil as the most acceptable form of euthanasia but strongly go against using vodka. I am doubtful on how humane clove oil is and why it is so more different to vodka- its the same principle when it comes down to it after all, a "fast" means of poisoning the blood stream and quick suffocation in one.
What is to say clove oil does not burn the fish's skin off as it dies like vodka?
And i have noticed that clove oil is not a risk free fast method of euthanasia- i have read many storys of it taking up to 5minutes to kill a fish or only make them go unconsious- surely this is not considered the most humane method when there are other methods out there that guaranetee a fast death i.e destroying the fish's brain via bashing its brains out with a hammer or peicing the brain with a sharp object like knife or scissor blade?
With methods of euthansia that rely on poisoning the bloodstream and inducing quick suffocation in one like clove oil, surely this method would become less and less effective on more the larger fish?
What are your opinions on this subject and questions?
size is irrelevent
/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=60545&hl=pain
